Trump hush money trial: Defense accuses Michael Cohen of lying in fiery turn

Trump's hush money trial gets heated as defense accuses Michael Cohen of lying about phone call with Stormy Daniels.

Former President Donald Trump's hush money trial took a dramatic turn on Thursday as the defense accused Michael Cohen of fabricating details about a crucial phone call regarding the alleged deal with adult film star Stormy Daniels, also known as Stephanie Clifford.

During cross-examination, defense attorney Todd Blanche challenged Cohen's testimony about a phone call he claimed to have made to Trump's bodyguard Keith Schiller on Oct. 24, 2016. Blanche argued that the call was not related to the agreement with Daniels as Cohen had stated, but rather to address a series of harassing prank calls Cohen had been receiving from a teenager.

Text messages between Cohen and the alleged prankster were presented, revealing Cohen's frustration with the calls and his intention to involve the Secret Service. Blanche pointed out that on the night of Oct. 24, Cohen messaged Schiller about the harassment, leading to a phone call between the two at 8:02 p.m.

Blanche pressed Cohen on his claim that the call was to discuss the deal with Trump, insisting that Cohen did not actually speak with the former President that night. Despite the defense's aggressive questioning and accusations of dishonesty, Cohen maintained his version of events, asserting that he did indeed speak to both Trump and Schiller during the call.

The defense's strategy centered on discrediting Cohen as a habitual liar with a history of criminal convictions and admitted perjury. Cohen, in turn, acknowledged his past misdeeds, attributing them to a desire to protect Trump and his campaign. He expressed regret for compromising his moral values and loyalty, ultimately suffering the consequences along with his family.

The intense exchange in the courtroom underscored the high stakes of the trial, with both sides fiercely contesting the credibility of key witnesses and evidence. As the proceedings continue, the conflicting narratives and competing interests in the case promise to keep tensions high and the outcome uncertain.